News Future of European Constitution After French Vote

[vanesch]

For completeness China's GDP is approx 14% of the USA's ranking them 6th in the world. So it will take quite a while for them to catch up on the USA as well.

Be careful! This means that there is a factor of 7.1 difference between the Chinese GDP and the US. Now, at a differential annual growth rate of say, 15%, it takes 14 years (log 7.1 / log 1.15) for the Chinese to be at the US GNP.

Ok, that's "quite a while" but not some millennia !

cheers,
Patrick.

 

[GENIERE]

I have a question, though: in the US, doesn't there exist a legal means of expropriation ? I mean, if you have somewhere some farmland, or a house, or whatever, that is in the way of a big military or civil project, is there no legal means to get you to sell it to the state ?
Maybe you guys have less of such a problem in that there is "room enough" to do it where it doesn't hinder anybody...

cheers,
Patrick.

I hope I didn't imply the US had no such laws, we do. Federal, state, county and municipal governments steal millions of acres a year from the private owners. All for the public good, of course, and much of it paved over to provide easy access for liter removal. In the US if one compares the millions of pristine acreage owned by duck hunting clubs to the once beautiful Yosemite acreage, it is quite obvious the private owners do a much better job. Ditto for yacht clubs, fisheries, residences on the seashore... especially the liberal millionaires who prevent the environmental damage of windmills if built in their line of sight.


...

 

[vanesch]

Yes if you are a Federalist who wants a european government to take sovereign powers away from member states and transfer them to Brussels. Obviously most people aren't hence the 'no' votes.

I'm not a federalist! (and BTW, I'm not French, I just live here).
But you shouldn't worry that this "constitution" wanted to instore a federal Europe: the whole part devoted on how to LEAVE the union should be reassuring, no ? Or do you think that Texas has the right to leave federal US ?

Oh you mean much like the lobbying that is currently carried out as part of the everyday political process. I suspect this change was actually introduced to make it easier for the european parliament to ignore groups lobbying for change. Whereas currently they are listened to (because politicians need to get re-elected) they would now be handed the ready made excuse sorry I can't help you until you get a million people to sign a petition from X number of counties.

That's silly: both ways work. They STILL need to get elected. So one way is to contact your elected representative, the other one is, if they don't want to listen, to take action yourself.
What's the use of that parliament NOW ?

Must have been from the 'Yes' campaigners. They do tend to distort facts.

Usually less than the no-voters (except the nationalists, which are, IMHO, the only people who have a justified no vote - and even there I have my doubts - because with the text, they could finally make their country withdraw from the union)

How can anybody who believes they have a right to an income from the state regardless of the quality or demand for their products be described as right wing? Maybe it's a cultural difference in definitions but here we call people with that view communists!

Yes, French farmers are indeed extreme right wing communists!
I agree with you that this agricultural plan should change (however, the situation is not so black/white as you imply). I think it will anyhow change and this has in fact nothing to do with the constitution. With the constitution, there were enough means for it to change if the others agreed upon the change (and the French would have to eat their hat). Without it, anyway Chirac is in such a weak position now that he cannot defend it anymore to the others.

However, there is something good about this agricultural politics, which was its basic motivation (and after that, it became a fight over a lot of money and votes). The point is: without aids, European agriculture in general is not competitive on world scale, which, economically, means that it should not be done in Europe. But does that mean that a whole continent must become dependent on others for their FOOD ? Do you see what strategic weakness such a policy means ? What if our main food suppliers then suddenly decide to "negociate an offer we cannot refuse" ?

Bottom line is, there is an unstated agenda by some (Mainly by the French and German governments) to move toward a united europe by stealth but we the people simply do not want it and in every country with a referendum so far it has been rejected apart from Spain (who like Ireland over Nice) were warned of dire consequences if they rejected it.

The French were also warned! And I think that the main no voters in France (the left, who wanted MORE Europe, especially instoring European public services and social security a la French) just shot themselves very hard into the foot. You can warn a government. You cannot warn a population. A popular vote doesn't take responsability.
The Dutch didn't say no for the same reasons, but rather the opposite. They just expressed their nationalist feelings.

By the way I see Chirac is already maneouvering for a new referendum in France after promising prior to the vote that he wouldn't..

I think it will depend on how many no-votes there will be in the end. If it is not a very big number, I think that those saying no should be invited to leave if they somehow confirm that vote.
If it is a big number, then I think the European union has had it and should be dissolved (maybe with some automatic mechanisms still in place, like the internal free market and free travelling). That would then allow for a completely new building up from scratch with those willing to do so.

cheers,
Patrick.

 

[vanesch]

I hope I didn't imply the US had no such laws, we do. Federal, state, county and municipal governments steal millions of acres a year from the private owners.

So you made the objection about that point, not because in the US it was different, but because it didn't suit exactly your political vision ?
But the problem is: imagine we include your vision on that point exactly. Will now everybody else agree more or less with the overall document ?

I think that's the main reason why such a complex text which is the result of negociation and compromise and touches so many different fields can never be approved by public vote (referendum): everybody will find his/her little reason to be against it, because it doesn't suit completely the political visions of each person. There are 100 small reasons to say no, and one big one to say yes. The big reason is that this is the best compromise that one can have. Now, this is a reasoning that a responsable political *representative* can be convinced off, but not the majority of rather simple-minded honest people, who just say: hey, I wanted this in it, and I don't find it (or I find this in it, I don't agree with it), so I say no.
No matter what text, you will always collect a massive no vote.
That's the main reason, I think, that all representative organs (parliaments) in
Europe (from whatever political color they are) are massively in favor of it, while popular vote is massively against it. Popular vote doesn't possesses suffient "intelligence" to realize that this is the best deal you can get.
If we would vote PER ARTICLE then things would probably be different.
But given the number of articles, that's not very practical !

cheers,
Patrick.

 

[Art]

I'm not a federalist! (and BTW, I'm not French, I just live here).
But you shouldn't worry that this "constitution" wanted to instore a federal Europe: the whole part devoted on how to LEAVE the union should be reassuring, no ? Or do you think that Texas has the right to leave federal US ?.

Countries already have the right to leave. This new clause confirmed this but added there would be unspecified conditions 'thought to include monetary levys" So once again what appears to be a gift has a price tag attached.

That's silly: both ways work. They STILL need to get elected. So one way is to contact your elected representative, the other one is, if they don't want to listen, to take action yourself.
What's the use of that parliament NOW ?.

I think you'll find it will be instead of not as well as.
As for the use of the EU parliament, apart from to add a veneer of repectability to an undemocratic institution, none, so my vote is to disband it.

Yes, French farmers are indeed extreme right wing communists!

Isn't the usual term for this combination Fascist?

I agree with you that this agricultural plan should change (however, the situation is not so black/white as you imply). I think it will anyhow change and this has in fact nothing to do with the constitution. With the constitution, there were enough means for it to change if the others agreed upon the change (and the French would have to eat their hat). Without it, anyway Chirac is in such a weak position now that he cannot defend it anymore to the others..

The reduction in the areas in which members can exercise a veto is what troubled the farmers. They are frightened of QMV as they wish to maintain the status quo.

However, there is something good about this agricultural politics, which was its basic motivation (and after that, it became a fight over a lot of money and votes). The point is: without aids, European agriculture in general is not competitive on world scale, which, economically, means that it should not be done in Europe. But does that mean that a whole continent must become dependent on others for their FOOD ? Do you see what strategic weakness such a policy means ? What if our main food suppliers then suddenly decide to "negociate an offer we cannot refuse" ?.

Try telling the entire African continent how good it is. Because of these policies they are literally starving to death. Under normal free market conditions they would be the food suppliers for europe and so would finally get a foot on the bottom rung of the ladder to prosperity. It would also be good for the vast majority of EU citizens if the subsidies were removed the savings per household equating to thousands of euros per annum would allow a much needed boost to consumer spending in the immediate future thus creating more jobs in EU manufacturing. Longer term advantages would be that a more prosperous Africa would open up whole new markets for europe to export to.
As for future unreasonable demands, a free market takes care of that. In any case I'd credit the Africans with more integrity than our own farmers.

I think it will depend on how many no-votes there will be in the end. If it is not a very big number, I think that those saying no should be invited to leave if they somehow confirm that vote..

That depends on how the votes are counted. The EU are boasting that the Yes vote already is close to 50% of the overall population of europe. They of course are including as 'Yes' the entire populations of all those countries who have ratified the treaty without a referendum

If it is a big number, then I think the European union has had it and should be dissolved (maybe with some automatic mechanisms still in place, like the internal free market and free travelling). That would then allow for a completely new building up from scratch with those willing to do so..

Sounds perfect to me

 

[vanesch]

Isn't the usual term for this combination Fascist?

Of course, that's why they vote fascist (front national).

Try telling the entire African continent how good it is. Because of these policies they are literally starving to death. Under normal free market conditions they would be the food suppliers for europe and so would finally get a foot on the bottom rung of the ladder to prosperity.

The aim of the EU is not to do some good to Africa of course, it is to do some good to their member states. And if the free market were guaranteed everywhere I'd agree with you, but it isn't, so you cannot let African leaders have the power to decide when to feed Europe or not. Nor the Chinese or the Russians or the Americans (although the last ones would even be probably the fairest to count on). Hey, the Americans do exactly the same thing!

It would also be good for the vast majority of EU citizens if the subsidies were removed the savings per household equating to thousands of euros per annum would allow a much needed boost to consumer spending in the immediate future thus creating more jobs in EU manufacturing. Longer term advantages would be that a more prosperous Africa would open up whole new markets for europe to export to.

Yes, I agree with that... if the free market and open competition were guaranteed everywhere. But it isn't. Look at the oil business. You can't really say that that is an open market, is it ? It has never been used as political pressure, has it ? Now, it is hard to come by without oil. But it is still harder to come by without food.

As for future unreasonable demands, a free market takes care of that. In any case I'd credit the Africans with more integrity than our own farmers.

That's silly. You would prefer to depend on the integrity of African dictators??

That depends on how the votes are counted. The EU are boasting that the Yes vote already is close to 50% of the overall population of europe.

No, I mean, the votes per country, no matter how a country determines to make his decision. If, say, 6 or 7 countries vote against, one way or another (already including France and the Netherlands), they'd be proposed to negociate what parts of the European machinery they still want to participate in, and then leave, but become some kind of "privileged partners" of the union (which will then probably be dominated by Germany). If 10 or 12 countries say no, then that probably means that the European idea is dead. The most dangerous situation would be when 2 blocs arise: say an eastern one (germany + most of eastern europe) and some western part. Then the construction that stopped war in this part of the world for more than half a century would become the origin of a future conflict. The lessons of WWII will then have served for only 2 generations.

 

[Art]

The aim of the EU is not to do some good to Africa of course, it is to do some good to their member states. And if the free market were guaranteed everywhere I'd agree with you, but it isn't, so you cannot let African leaders have the power to decide when to feed Europe or not. Nor the Chinese or the Russians or the Americans (although the last ones would even be probably the fairest to count on). Hey, the Americans do exactly the same thing!

Yes they do which makes them as reprehensible as the EU.

Yes, I agree with that... if the free market and open competition were guaranteed everywhere. But it isn't. Look at the oil business. You can't really say that that is an open market, is it ? It has never been used as political pressure, has it ? Now, it is hard to come by without oil. But it is still harder to come by without food.

The difference being of course oil is a limited resource whereas the EU could choose to grow their own food if it became economically viable to do so within a free market.

That's silly. You would prefer to depend on the integrity of African dictators??

I was being ironic, or was I?

No, I mean, the votes per country, no matter how a country determines to make his decision. If, say, 6 or 7 countries vote against, one way or another (already including France and the Netherlands), they'd be proposed to negociate what parts of the European machinery they still want to participate in, and then leave, but become some kind of "privileged partners" of the union (which will then probably be dominated by Germany). If 10 or 12 countries say no, then that probably means that the European idea is dead. The most dangerous situation would be when 2 blocs arise: say an eastern one (germany + most of eastern europe) and some western part. Then the construction that stopped war in this part of the world for more than half a century would become the origin of a future conflict. The lessons of WWII will then have served for only 2 generations.

Guess France's ambition to dominate europe are now finished as they'll never succeed in doing it the old fashioned way.

As the Duke of Wellington, who upset the French by winning at Waterloo, was overheard to say (loudly) in Vienna when the French marshals studiously turned their backs on him "Ah, I have seen those backs before"

 

[vanesch]

Yes they do which makes them as reprehensible as the EU.

American bashing, now ?

The difference being of course oil is a limited resource whereas the EU could choose to grow their own food if it became economically viable to do so within a free market.

Farming will become economically viable in Europe (and the US) only when other producers are on our level of living standards (labor at equal price). That can be done by lowering ours, or by waiting until theirs is higher. Contrary to production of industrial goods, it is very difficult to increase seriously the economic efficiency of farming (except by bio engineering which is maybe not such a great solution). You cannot increase the yield of biological farming by say, a 20-fold factor for the same labor input. So competition in that domain doesn't really help in increasing economic efficiency (if you're not allowed to use slaves).

Guess France's ambition to dominate europe are now finished as they'll never succeed in doing it the old fashioned way.

As the Duke of Wellington, who upset the French by winning at Waterloo, was overheard to say (loudly) in Vienna when the French marshals studiously turned their backs on him "Ah, I have seen those backs before"

Ah, good old French bashing

 

[GENIERE]

...Well, there is a VERY CLEAR correlation between education level and voting. People who left school at 16 voted for 65% against ; people with a college degree voted for 64% in favor. People with just a high school diploma were 53% against.

http://www.ipsos.fr/CanalIpsos/articles/1608.asp?rubId=19

cheers,
Patrick.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1639055,00.html


“…Although French and Dutch polls showed that the more people knew about the constitution, the more likely they were to vote “no”, …”

Aha! I knew it. There is a negative correlation between higher education and knowledge.

Particle physicists excepted.

...

 

[vanesch]

“…Although French and Dutch polls showed that the more people knew about the constitution, the more likely they were to vote “no”, …”

Aha! I knew it. There is a negative correlation between higher education and knowledge.

No, not necessarily. If you don't understand what you're reading, you might be tempted to be against it more than if you didn't bother to look of course.
For instance, in France a big part of the no-voting left was against this constitution because no-where was there a mention of "public service". Well, in Eurospeak, this is called "services of public interest", go figure.
As I said, the more you look at such a complicated text, the more you will find items you don't like particularly.

But the comparison to particle physics is maybe not completely out of hand. If you present to the large public the possibility to build a "machine that will explore the secrets of the universe" or something of the kind, probably you might get a mildly positive return. If you give them the technical proposal of the experiments to be proposed, probably most people will find that such an incomprehensible gobbledegook which will not solve their daily problems, and that they don't see why they should pay taxes for it.
On the other hand, if you present that to a commitee of scientists who CAN understand the proposal (even if they are not involved directly in it, so that it is not a matter of money or power to them), that will probably even increase their desire to support the project, now that they know practically what it really is for.

cheers,
Patrick.

PS: on the other hand, I agree with the article of the Times: now that one HAS done the sillyness to ask the people what they think of it (question of being "popular" one has to assume the consequences). The "no" was a stupid no in that it will seriously degrade about all aspects of political and economic life in most European countries after the EU is dissolved, but hey, if one really wants Joe Sixpack to decide about big strategies to sound "democratic" well then they'll have to accept that Joe Sixpack decides about his own "strategies" ("it's all the fault of those damn foreigners"). No was no and there's no mistake about it.

 

[Art]

Vanesch, Do you believe this would be the last treaty proposed by the EU (not counting provision for new members) or do you think as a lot of people think that this is just one more step along the way to a federal europe.
Also what is your opinion of Chirac's motivation in pushing for the rest of the EU members to continue with ratification? Do you think this is because he intends to overturn in some way the French and Dutch votes?
IMHO Chirac is wasted in europe there are in the world I'm sure several banana republics crying out for a leader such as he.

 

[vanesch]

Vanesch, Do you believe this would be the last treaty proposed by the EU (not counting provision for new members) or do you think as a lot of people think that this is just one more step along the way to a federal europe.

I think, if ever there will be a federal Europe, this will be in a long, long time, which I won't live, and maybe my children won't live. After that, it is difficult to foresee, because I think environmental problems will be so terrible that cultural differences which separate nations don't make much of a difference anymore (when southern Europe will be changed into something like the Sahara for instance).

I'm myself a fan of a quite important European integration, however, without resolving nations, but in "framing" them ; and that's why I like the bureaucratic/technocratic aspect of the current construction. It is a blind machine which imposes rules to national politicians, without itself being exposed to the pressure of the commerce of votes.

One of the reasons why I like it is that this system saved my native country (Belgium) from absolute bancruptcy. I still remember Belgian prime minister Martens (who led 13 ! gouvernments in the 80ies) digging a monumental hole in public finance (under pressure by "the people"): at a certain point, yearly deficit was 13% ; my country is still paying back those 15 years or so of popular christen democrat gouvernment (*). At a certain point the guy was even proud of having negociated a devaluation I think of about 12% of the Belgian Franc. It was technocratic Europe which obliged Belgium to reduce yearly deficit to within 3% ; nobody else would have done it until a very very hard wall was hit. It wasn't popular. It is much easier to spend state money you don't have and not raise taxes. No politician could have sold to the people his politics of reducing state expenses and increasing taxes to get the balance right, if it weren't for "we are obliged to do so by evil Europe". So I see this "undemocratic" Europe more as the wise technicians who stop politicians from doing really stupid things.

But in order for this "technocratic and undemocratic" Europe to be able to do its thing, it needs a well-organized set of rules by which it functions, and with the 25 members, the current rules don't work anymore. There's just to many of them.

On the other hand, I don't want, for the moment, a federal Europe. You see in the US what it does: too much power in the hands of too few, which then think they should play master of the world (I don't think I have to give names). It is another reason why I like the European construction: there are no "heroes" but just almost anonymous employees who make the machine run according to the rules. As a guardian of the free market, I think they do a great job, btw.

Moreover, I think it is great, in Europe, that there are different cultures, mentalities, languages, etc... so that not everybody is doing the same (right or wrong) thing everywhere, and that we can learn from each other. The other thing that is great with the European construction is that it is a meeting place, for people, organisations and so on, who want to do something together. Research is probably the best example. Education too, with, at this moment, about the right mixture between national differences and international compatibility: allowing for different systems to work according to different rules, and enough compatibility that you can go from one system to another without being completely lost). That doesn't need any federal Europe. But a tight working together.

Europe could have been a great lesson to the rest of the world that different people can do things together without sacrifying their individuality and in respect for each other ; that's gone now: everybody thinks again that his/her way of doing things is the best and that the "foreigner" is only a load of misery.

Also what is your opinion of Chirac's motivation in pushing for the rest of the EU members to continue with ratification? Do you think this is because he intends to overturn in some way the French and Dutch votes?
IMHO Chirac is wasted in europe there are in the world I'm sure several banana republics crying out for a leader such as he.

Well, I do have some respect for Chirac: as much as he hasn't got a clue of leading a country and giving a line to internal politics, as much he does have some "panache" on the international scene. I don't think only Chirac is wasted in Europe: France is wasted in Europe. (as well as the Netherlands)

I don't think there is any hope of overturning the French vote or the Dutch vote: what happened, happened. In any case, I think Chirac has done his time: in his own party there is a very bright and popular candidate (Sarkozy), and the left is killing itself (due to the division between the yes and no proponents). The only alternative is Le Pen (fascist) who became extremely popular thanks to this no vote.

I have to say I don't understand why he didn't resign: it is almost sure that the left couldn't win. There was a real danger of Le Pen winning of course, but it was almost sure that Sarkozy would win. True, Chirac and Sarkozy are rivals (but he took him nevertheless as minister of internal affairs) but they are from the same party. Ok, there are some reasons of course: there's a financial scandal hanging over his head, but in France there's a law which makes the president, during his mandate, immune to persecution for any crime he didn't commit during the mandate (legal procedures are frozen until after his return of his mandate). So he will probably go directly from the Elysee (presidential palace) to La Sante (prison in Paris) :-)

cheers,
Patrick.

(*) Edit: Martens (a lawyer by education) re-invented the concept of second derivative, and explained it to the public, with his famous phrase: "the increase of the increase of the deficit is lowering"

 

[Art]

I think, if ever there will be a federal Europe, this will be in a long, long time, which I won't live, and maybe my children won't live. After that, it is difficult to foresee, because I think environmental problems will be so terrible that cultural differences which separate nations don't make much of a difference anymore (when southern Europe will be changed into something like the Sahara for instance).

I'm myself a fan of a quite important European integration, however, without resolving nations, but in "framing" them ; and that's why I like the bureaucratic/technocratic aspect of the current construction. It is a blind machine which imposes rules to national politicians, without itself being exposed to the pressure of the commerce of votes.

One of the reasons why I like it is that this system saved my native country (Belgium) from absolute bancruptcy. I still remember Belgian prime minister Martens (who led 13 ! gouvernments in the 80ies) digging a monumental hole in public finance (under pressure by "the people"): at a certain point, yearly deficit was 13% ; my country is still paying back those 15 years or so of popular christen democrat gouvernment (*). At a certain point the guy was even proud of having negociated a devaluation I think of about 12% of the Belgian Franc. It was technocratic Europe which obliged Belgium to reduce yearly deficit to within 3% ; nobody else would have done it until a very very hard wall was hit. It wasn't popular. It is much easier to spend state money you don't have and not raise taxes. No politician could have sold to the people his politics of reducing state expenses and increasing taxes to get the balance right, if it weren't for "we are obliged to do so by evil Europe". So I see this "undemocratic" Europe more as the wise technicians who stop politicians from doing really stupid things.

But in order for this "technocratic and undemocratic" Europe to be able to do its thing, it needs a well-organized set of rules by which it functions, and with the 25 members, the current rules don't work anymore. There's just to many of them.

On the other hand, I don't want, for the moment, a federal Europe. You see in the US what it does: too much power in the hands of too few, which then think they should play master of the world (I don't think I have to give names). It is another reason why I like the European construction: there are no "heroes" but just almost anonymous employees who make the machine run according to the rules. As a guardian of the free market, I think they do a great job, btw.

Moreover, I think it is great, in Europe, that there are different cultures, mentalities, languages, etc... so that not everybody is doing the same (right or wrong) thing everywhere, and that we can learn from each other. The other thing that is great with the European construction is that it is a meeting place, for people, organisations and so on, who want to do something together. Research is probably the best example. Education too, with, at this moment, about the right mixture between national differences and international compatibility: allowing for different systems to work according to different rules, and enough compatibility that you can go from one system to another without being completely lost). That doesn't need any federal Europe. But a tight working together.

Europe could have been a great lesson to the rest of the world that different people can do things together without sacrifying their individuality and in respect for each other ; that's gone now: everybody thinks again that his/her way of doing things is the best and that the "foreigner" is only a load of misery.



Well, I do have some respect for Chirac: as much as he hasn't got a clue of leading a country and giving a line to internal politics, as much he does have some "panache" on the international scene. I don't think only Chirac is wasted in Europe: France is wasted in Europe. (as well as the Netherlands)

I don't think there is any hope of overturning the French vote or the Dutch vote: what happened, happened. In any case, I think Chirac has done his time: in his own party there is a very bright and popular candidate (Sarkozy), and the left is killing itself (due to the division between the yes and no proponents). The only alternative is Le Pen (fascist) who became extremely popular thanks to this no vote.

I have to say I don't understand why he didn't resign: it is almost sure that the left couldn't win. There was a real danger of Le Pen winning of course, but it was almost sure that Sarkozy would win. True, Chirac and Sarkozy are rivals (but he took him nevertheless as minister of internal affairs) but they are from the same party. Ok, there are some reasons of course: there's a financial scandal hanging over his head, but in France there's a law which makes the president, during his mandate, immune to persecution for any crime he didn't commit during the mandate (legal procedures are frozen until after his return of his mandate). So he will probably go directly from the Elysee (presidential palace) to La Sante (prison in Paris) :-)

cheers,
Patrick.

(*) Edit: Martens (a lawyer by education) re-invented the concept of second derivative, and explained it to the public, with his famous phrase: "the increase of the increase of the deficit is lowering"

There's not a lot there I would disagree with. The only major point is I do not think It will lead to the breakup of the EU. I think a new simpler treaty will be drafted consolidating the existing ones without any revisions with the exception of possible changes to the QMV.
I have lived in both England and Ireland and from the English viewpoint I understand fully their deep distrust of the EU. However like your comments re Belgium the more control the EU takes away from the Irish government the better for the Irish people. The amount of sleaze and corruption over the years is simply astonishing. Even when exposed nothing is done! But putting that aside even if they were scrupulously honest their total inept mismanagement of everything from the economy to society itself has been breathtaking. The EU without a doubt was a lifesaver for Ireland.

 

[vanesch]

I think a new simpler treaty will be drafted consolidating the existing ones without any revisions with the exception of possible changes to the QMV.

If there was one big objection I had to that constitution was indeed its complexity (what was it, 265 pages ?). So I can only approve any simplification of it ; but is that going to be possible, it being the result of long negociations and compromis ?
Also, was it such a bad idea to put forward some general principles (like universal rights - even though that is completely superfluous in that most member states already individually have such bills) ? So I don't see what can fundamentally be changed and simplified from the current text. The current treaties ARE complicated, and the result of negociations, power games etc...

The only thing you can do to simplify is to send home the European parliament, but that will in general be disapproved by the public I'd think (I mean, many of those favorable to any European treaty will probably NOT want to see less apparent (fake) democracy in it :-) That parliament will have to get or more decision power, or go home. As it is now, it is just a parking lot for failed national politicians (which is maybe not a bad idea, after all - a sort of european waste disposal :-) which get a big salary for driving between Brussels and Strasbourg and keep their mouth shut. In fact there is, on one hand, no need to give more "democracy" to the European construction: after all, it is put in place by democratically mandated governments. You can just as well complain about a lack of democracy in, say, justice or the army, where people don't vote for who will become judge or general. On the other hand, the existence of a democratic representation of the people of Europe without going through their national governments was an ideal vehicle to counter purely nationalistic powergames, and to try to have an emergent "voice of the European people". But then you have to DO something with that representation, and that is something that was missing up to now, and could have changed (moderately) with the current text.

I have the impression that this no-voting just pushed people back into their nationalistic reflexes and discredited the entire European construction, and that, to me, is quite dramatic. I think it was, overall, something very positive. It will take a long time, I think, to change this tendency now. Maybe I'm wrong, and maybe people just wanted something less complex and ambitious, but I wonder if such a thing is possible.

cheers,
Patrick.